Re: [Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread Deepayan Sarkar 
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Duncan Murdoch
 wrote:
> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
>>
>> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>>
>
> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
> that it's a good license for open source software?
>
> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
> it.

Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/

Debian does include software "licensed" like this, and seems to think
this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
"public domain".  The first two examples I found:

https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1

This follows the format explained in
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
equivalent to being in the public domain. R does include CC0 as a
shorthand (e.g., geoknife).

https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ says that



Licenses currently found in Debian main include:

- ...
- ...
- public domain (not a license, strictly speaking)



The equivalent for CRAN would probably be something like "License:
public-domain + file LICENSE".

-Deepayan

> Duncan Murdoch
>
>
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel 

On 13 January 2017 at 17:43, frede...@ofb.net wrote:
| I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
| than an honest request for information.
| 
| As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
| an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
| support the inclusion of some such option.
| 
| FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns
| up unlicense.org as the second result.

You missed the gist of Duncan's post: unless/until a body with authority on
which licenses interoperate blesses this one, it is not on the radar.

In short, it has to be compatible with other key OSS licenses. The
documentation put forward says nothing about that, which is a problem.

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread frederik 
I don't see why Charles' question should be taken as anything other
than an honest request for information.

As for me, I've never heard of this license, but if CRAN doesn't have
an option to license software in the public domain, then I would
support the inclusion of some such option.

FWIW, searching for "public domain software license" on Google turns
up unlicense.org as the second result.

Frederick

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:19:47PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:
> > I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
> > licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
> > 
> 
> That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks
> that it's a good license for open source software?
> 
> If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS
> license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN
> doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to recognize
> it.
> 
> Duncan Murdoch
> 
> __
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread Duncan Murdoch 

On 13/01/2017 3:21 PM, Charles Geyer wrote:

I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?



That's a question for you to answer, not to ask.  Who besides you thinks 
that it's a good license for open source software?


If it is recognized by the OSF or FSF or some other authority as a FOSS 
license, then CRAN would probably also recognize it.  If not, then CRAN 
doesn't have the resources to evaluate it and so is unlikely to 
recognize it.


Duncan Murdoch

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] calling native routines in another package (Sec 5.4.2 of Writing R Extensions)

2017-01-13 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel 

On 13 January 2017 at 13:25, Charles Geyer wrote:
| I just (apparently) figured out how to do the stuff described in
| Section 5.4.2 of
| Writing R Extensions.  I put my test toy packages on github
|  for anyone to copy.  If anyone
| cares to read the README and the bits of code it links to and tell me
| anywhere I am wrong, I would be grateful.
| 
| But the main point of this e-mail is a complaint about that section of
| Writing R Extensions.  It says (even in R-devel) "A CRAN example of
| the use of this mechanism is package lme4, which links to Matrix." but
| that does not appear to be true anymore.  I cannot see any inclusion
| of headers from Matrix in lme4 nor any call to R_GetCCallable.  I did
| find the file inst/include/Matrix_stubs.c in the Matrix package
| somewhat helpful (although mystifying at first).
| 
| So this can be considered a documentation bug report (if I am
| correct).  Do I need to do an official bugzilla one?
| 
| Just a further check.  lme4 (1.1-12) does not have Matrix in the
| LinkingTo field of its DESCRIPTION file, so headers from Matrix cannot
| be used.  And
| 
| grep R_Get *.[ch]*
| 
| in the src directory of lme4 returns nothing.

There are a few other packages doing this

RcppXts uses exported C code from xts [1]
RcppRedis users export C code from RApiSerialize
RcppKalman uses expm
Vincent Goulet just release expint which offers an API

Dirk

[1] Vincent and I went over this recently when he prepared expint. While I
(re-)wrote a large part of the xts header for use by RcppXts and others, I
didn't leave my name in the header so Jeff got author credits for expint
instead.  C'est la vie.

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Re: [Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread Avraham Adler 
A number of years ago I asked here for the ISC to be added and was told you
have to ask CRAN, not Rd.

Good luck,

Avi

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM Charles Geyer  wrote:

> I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
>
> licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Charles Geyer
>
> Professor, School of Statistics
>
> Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
>
> University of Minnesota
>
> char...@stat.umn.edu
>
>
>
> __
>
> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
>
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

[Rd] unlicense

2017-01-13 Thread Charles Geyer 
I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
licenses.  Does anyone else think that worthwhile?

-- 
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
char...@stat.umn.edu

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

[Rd] calling native routines in another package (Sec 5.4.2 of Writing R Extensions)

2017-01-13 Thread Charles Geyer 
I just (apparently) figured out how to do the stuff described in
Section 5.4.2 of
Writing R Extensions.  I put my test toy packages on github
 for anyone to copy.  If anyone
cares to read the README and the bits of code it links to and tell me
anywhere I am wrong, I would be grateful.

But the main point of this e-mail is a complaint about that section of
Writing R Extensions.  It says (even in R-devel) "A CRAN example of
the use of this mechanism is package lme4, which links to Matrix." but
that does not appear to be true anymore.  I cannot see any inclusion
of headers from Matrix in lme4 nor any call to R_GetCCallable.  I did
find the file inst/include/Matrix_stubs.c in the Matrix package
somewhat helpful (although mystifying at first).

So this can be considered a documentation bug report (if I am
correct).  Do I need to do an official bugzilla one?

Just a further check.  lme4 (1.1-12) does not have Matrix in the
LinkingTo field of its DESCRIPTION file, so headers from Matrix cannot
be used.  And

grep R_Get *.[ch]*

in the src directory of lme4 returns nothing.

__
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel